A Note on Misplaced or Wrongly Attached zu in German - Cambridge University Press
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Germanic Linguistics 32.1 (2020):43–82
doi: 10.1017/S1470542719000138
A Note on Misplaced or Wrongly Attached zu
in German
Oliver Schallert
University of Munich
This paper deals with the misplacement of the infinitival marker zu ‘to’
in German. While this phenomenon only occurs in certain config-
urations in the standard language, such as auxiliary fronting, it is
common in dialects and shows quite a high degree of variability. I
discuss the misplacement of zu in Standard German due to auxiliary
fronting, as well as other types of zu-misplacement found in dialects. I
propose two parsimonious options for the analysis of the standard
language as well as dialect cases, namely, i) precedence rules and ii) a
special kind of infixing operation that was first proposed in the
framework of Categorial Morphology (Bach 1984, Hoeksema 1985). I
show that even though the first approach has its merits, the second one
is more advantageous.*
Keywords: verb status, Categorial Morphology, syntax-morphology
interface, displaced morphology, West Germanic, German dialects
1. Introduction.
One of the more memorable quotes by Thorsten Legat, a German ex-
football professional notorious for his clumsy style of speaking, goes
like this:
Es ist einfach ’ne Faszination, hier zu sein zu dürfen. Die Region braucht
natürlich Erfolgserlebnisse. Mein größter Wunsch war ebenthalb, einmal
[...] Trainer zu sein dürfen. So, das ist jetzt eingetroffen. Nichtsdestotrotz
freu’ ich mich da drauf. (Süddeutsche Zeitung 2016)
*
I want to thank Ann-Marie Moser, Martin Salzmann, Thilo Weber, and Helmut
Weiß for providing valuable input on previous versions of this article. All
remaining shortcomings or inconsistencies are my own. Last but not least, a big
hug to Jenny Robins for correcting my English.
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2020. This is an Open Access article,
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013844 Schallert
It’s fascinating to be here. This region is in need of a sense of success.
So, my biggest wish was [...] to be a team coach. Well, this has come
true. Nonetheless, I’m looking forward to it.
German is an awful language, at least when it comes to its infinitival
morphosyntax. It is not surprising, then, that even speakers less prone to
spoonerisms than Thorsten Legat run into troubles in this domain—be
they associated with parsing difficulties that can be encountered with
nested or crossed dependencies in ECM-constructions (Bach at al. 1986)
or with mysteries such as the long passive, as in 1. Such examples show
case conversion of the embedded object when the matrix verb appears in
the passive.1 This construction shows a very high variance in terms of its
general acceptability; in particular, judgments vary significantly as to
what matrix predicates are acceptable in this construction.
(1) a. wenn Karl den Wagen zu reparieren versucht
if Karl the car.ACC to repair tries
‘if Karl tries to repair the car’
b. wenn der Wagen zu reparieren versucht wird
if the car.NOM to repair tried becomes
‘if one tries to repair the car’ (Höhle 1978:176)
This paper addresses one such challenging issue, namely, the
placement of the infinitival marker zu ‘to’ in several dialects of German,
and also sheds light on what should be the best analysis of zu in Standard
German. I am not offering a thorough analysis of zu and all the
intricacies associated with its use. Rather, I want to share a new
empirical observation and sketch an idea of what a proper analysis of this
phenomenon might look like. In a nutshell, the basic generalization is the
1
Crossed dependencies have figured prominently in the theory of grammar since
they were taken as evidence that context-free grammars are not powerful enough
to express all syntactic dependencies that can occur in natural languages (see
Shieber 1985 on Swiss German). This phenomenon led to the construction of a
family of new grammar formalisms, weakly context-sensitive grammars, enriched
with additional mechanisms, such as function composition, that go beyond the
capacity of context-free grammars. In fact, such a device—namely, wrapping
rules—is also used in the analysis sketched in this paper.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 45
following: zu is a functional morpheme that can be handed down from
the immediately dominated verb of a verbal chain to its next dependent.
In technical terms, there are two simple tools to capture this insight,
namely:
(i) Precedence statements in their original form, as introduced in
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG; Gazdar et al. 1985).
This means that dominance (as a hierarchical relation) is dissociated
from precedence (as a string-based, linear notion).
(ii) The (mis)placement of zu can be treated in terms of a special kind of
infixation operation. Such an approach was first developed in the
context of Categorical Morphology (Hoeksema 1985), in particular
by Bach (1984) or Hoeksema & Janda (1988), and proved to be
useful beyond the realm of pure morphology.
These tools remain well within the boundaries of a restrictive and
formally explicit treatment of (morphological) displacement phenomena.
Precedence rules can even be stated for context-free grammars (even
though they soon reach their limits), and the wrapping rules for infixation
discussed below merely represent a mildly context-sensitive add-on. The
choice of one of these two options is mainly dependent on where one
wants to draw the line between syntax and morphology. While there is
sufficient empirical evidence for treating zu as a syntactically inde-
pendent element sensitive to constraints on linearization, it might be
sensible to keep other displacement phenomena inside the realm of
inflectional morphology.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: First (section
2), I discuss the basic empirical facts about zu ‘to’ in Standard German
and dialectal varieties such as Alemannic and Hessian. I also turn to
other displacement phenomena that can occur in the morphological
domain. Then (section 3), I elaborate on some of the technicalities
associated with the proper treatment of these phenomena. In section 4, I
offer some thoughts on whether certain cases of the phenomenon under
discussion might constitute exploratory expressions in the sense of
Harris & Campbell 1995, that is, forerunners of a new grammatical
construction. The final section wraps up the main findings of the paper.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013846 Schallert
2. The Syntactic Behavior of zu.
2.1. The Basic Facts.
Let me now take a closer look at the syntactic behavior of the infinitival
marker zu ‘to’ in German and its dialects. Bech (1955:13) was the first to
notice that this element—contrary to what the convention of treating it as
a separate orthographic word might suggest—actually fits better within
inflectional morphology, as an affix. In current theoretical approaches to
German sentence structure, this seems to be the majority position (Vogel
2009:327, note 15). An analysis along these lines is supported by the data
in 2 (see Haider 2010:272–273).
(2) a. Er schien gleichzeitig [ zu lachen und *(zu) weinen]
he seems at-the-same-time to laugh and to cry
b. He seemed to [laugh and cry at the same time]
c. anzufangen ‘to begin’ (lit. ‘on=to=catch’); angefangen ‘begun’
(lit. ‘on=ge=catched’)
The contrast between 2a and 2b shows that zu in German is obligatorily
realized in both conjuncts in coordinations (Bech 1955 refers to this
restriction as Statuskongruenz ‘status agreement’). In English, by
contrast, where the status of (cognate) to as a particle is uncontroversial,
this restriction is not operative. In addition, 2c shows that zu and the
participial prefix ge- appear in the same structural position in particle
verb constructions, that is, between the stem and the (putative) particle.
Several other arguments in favor of the German infinitival marker
being an affix are discussed by Haider (1993:234–236). These arguments
are based on differences between zu and its English counterpart to, which
is usually analyzed as an exponent of a functional head position (Io or
To). In English, but not in German, the negation particle as well as
adverbs can intervene between to and the VP, as in 3a,b; 3c shows that in
VP ellipsis contexts, the particle must be retained.2
2
Of course, split infinitives are frowned upon by prescriptivists. However, there
is no doubt about the grammaticality and prominence of this phenomenon in
spoken English. Just as an example, consider pop-cultural memes such as “to
boldly go where no man has gone before” (Star Trek).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 47
(3) a. He was careful to not destroy the atmosphere.
b. He tried to carefully disentangle the complex argumentation.
c. They are [VP laying eggs now], just like they used to [VP _].
(Haider 1993:234, examples 2a,b,e)
Sporadic older analyses of zu as a functional head have proven to be
unconvincing on the empirical level (see the discussion by Haider
2010:273–274), yet this assumption still has its advocates—see, for
example, Hinterhölzl (2006:157–158; 2018), who analyzes zu as an
aspectual head, and Salzmann (2016, 2019), who assumes that zu is a
functional head without making particular claims as to its semantic
content or contribution. Of course, in a grammar-theoretic setting where
lexical integrity is lifted (which seems to be the standard assumption
within the generative mainstream) and even bound morphemes can be
considered as syntactic heads, the distinction between functional and
lexical categories is somewhat blurred. Thus, the question boils down to
which kind of functional category zu is exactly and whether it constitutes
a bound or a free morpheme.
Another question which shall not concern me any further is whether
zu is syntactically active or just ornamental, as has been assumed for
nonfinite inflectional markers in general (Sternefeld 2006:92, Rathert
2009:184). As far as I know, Haider (1984) was one of the first to
propose that zu blocks the designated argument in coherent infinitive
constructions, and in so doing he also offered a natural explanation for
modal sein-passives, as in 4a. With haben-passives, however, he has to
assume that deblocking is possible, as in 4b.
(4) a. Die Handtücher sind (von allen Badegästen)
the towels are by all bath=guests
gewaschen zurückzugeben.
washed back=to=give
‘The towels are to be returned laundered by all bathers.’
b. Alle Badegäste haben die Handtücher gewaschen
all bathers have the towels washed
zurückzugeben.
back=to=give
‘All bathers have to return the towels laundered.’
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013848 Schallert
In the same vein, Rapp & Wöllstein (2009) distinguish between two
variants of zu—one that is responsible for the referential anchoring of
complements of factive and propositional verbs and one expletive variant
incorporated into Vo. Thus, the idea that the infinitival marker—
somewhat orthogonal to its morphological status—is a syntactically (or
also semantically) active element still has its advocates.3
Let me return to the affix analysis. A problem for this view is posed
by data such as in 5a,b: They show that in Standard German, the zu-
marking is confined to the right edge of the verbal complex. When
processes such as fronting of the temporal auxiliary occur—for example,
in substitute infinitive constructions (commonly referred to as IPP, that
is, infinitivus pro participio)—the affix is handed down to the highest
verb of the remaining verbal complex, as in 5b. As a result, zu appears on
the wrong verb stem, which is unexpected for an affix. This process can
be stated in terms similar to Chomsky’s (1957) affix hopping mechanism
or some alternative device like the one proposed in this paper (see
below). This restriction—that is, zu being confined to the right edge—is
one of the sources of the so-called Skandalkonstruktion ‘scandal
construction’, exemplified by 5c, where each verb in the right periphery
bears the wrong (that is, an unexpected) morphological marking (see
Reis 1979, Vogel 2009, Haider 2011, Gaeta 2013).
(5) a. ohne singen gekonnt zu haben
without sing can.PCPT to have
b. ohne haben singen zu können
without have sing to can.IPP
c. ohne gesungen haben zu können
without sung.PCPT have to can.IPP
‘without having been able to sing’ (Vogel 2009:325, example 37)
3
One reviewer correctly notes that zu ‘to’ can be regarded as syntactically active
in other respects as well, for example, by licensing a PRO subject. Of course,
there are analyses of control infinitives that do not require this assumption (for
example, in an HSPG setting), yet the fact remains that there are several
observations that point to this element being more than just a morphological
ornament, so to speak.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 49
Remarkably, Dutch is not subject to this restriction, as the contrast
between 6a and 6b shows (examples taken from Bech 1963:291–292).
The syntactic inertness of zu, which is first mentioned by Merkes (1895),
was integrated into Bech’s (1955, 1957) topological model of German
infinitival constructions and used as a piece of evidence that the
occurrence of an upper field is an indicator for coherence.
(6) a. Ich glaube es haben tun zu können. Standard German
I believe it have do to can.IPP
b. Ik geloof het te hebben kunnen doen. Standard Dutch
I believe it to have can.IPP do
‘I believe to have been able to do it.’
While Bech 1963 was inclined to view such misplacements as indication
of the workings of conflicting grammatical rules (see also Reis 1979),
Vogel (2009:324) takes 5a,b as an empirical hint for analyzing zu as a
phrasal affix that is attached to the last verb of the verbal complex. In his
opinion, the first status (simple infinitive) and the third status (participle)
belong to word morphology, whereas the second status (zu-infinitive)
reflects a morphological property of the verb phrase.4
A consideration of German dialects and diachronic facts reveals that
misplaced zu is not restricted to perfective contexts (with or without
IPP). In the second volume of Otto Behaghel’s German syntax, quite a
variety of structural types can be found (see Behaghel 1924:308–309).
Apart from more regular cases of misplaced zu caused by auxiliary
4
As noted above, the positional restriction of zu is one of the sources of the
scandal construction. Haider (2011) views this construction as an example of a
“grammatical illusion.” Under this label he subsumes phenomena that are
judged acceptable by (some) informants yet involve apparent violations of
grammatical restrictions. In his opinion, they are the mirror-image of garden
path sentences, which are judged unacceptable due to parsing restrictions when
in fact they do not involve any grammatical violations. A typical illusory
example would be wrongly inflected genug ‘enough’ (as a right-headed
modifier) in examples such as eine groß genuge Summe ‘a big enough sum’.
Leaving open whether the scandal construction is grammatical or not, there is
clear evidence that misplaced zu is too regular a phenomenon to banish it from
the core grammar altogether.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013850 Schallert
fronting, as in 7a, one also finds configurations where zu attaches to the
wrong verb without any reordering having taken place, as in 7b. Further
examples of this type from Early New High German can be found in
Ebert et al. (1993:397), thus showing that it is a regular grammatical
pattern. Finally, as documented by 7c, there are also certain interactions
with other dialectal constructions, most notably particle splits that occur
in older stages of German and several contemporary dialects (see
Schallert & Schwalm 2015 for an overview).
(7) a. ich erinnere mich, einen Reisenden
I remember REFL a traveler
das eigentümliche Entsetzen haben schildern zu hören
the peculiar horror have narrate to hear
‘I remember a traveler having narrated the peculiar horror.’
(Freiligrath 5, 67)
b. habt angefangen, das dag auf deim hausz
have started the day at your house
zu verstreichenn lassenn
to elapse let
‘have started to elapse several days at your house’
(Paumgartner 1)
c. sich entslossen hat, kein verbot aus lassen zu geen
REFL decided has no ban out let to go
‘decided not to put a ban on...’ (Toppler 136)
Let me now examine modern dialects. 5 The phenomenon of
misplaced zu is reported for different varieties of Alemannic (see, for
example, Weber & Dieth 1987:244, note 1, on Zurich German, Hodler
1969:560 or Bader 1995 on Bernese German, and Schallert 2012:252 on
Vorarlberg Alemannic). As the examples in 8 show, misplaced zu
(realized in its clitic form z) also occurs in contexts other than IPP—8a
5
For a general overview on syntactically triggered cases in which inflectional
morphology appears at unexpected places in the verbal complex, see Höhle
2006:65–72.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 51
from Bernese German features the modal wöuue ‘want’ in the upper
field; 8b from Zurich German is a simple case of verb raising.
(8) a. dr Hans schiint dr Unfau wöuue gsee z’haa
the Hans seems the accident want.INF see to=have
‘Hans seems to have wanted to see the accident’ (Bader 1995:22)
b. Schämsch di nüüd cho z bättle?
shame-∅ REFL not come to beg
‘Aren’t you ashamed of having come here begging?’
(Weber & Dieth 1987:244, note 1)
Even though misplacements of zu have mainly been reported for
Alemannic dialects, they are also found in other varieties. Further
examples from different German dialects (mainly from the central
region) are cited in Höhle 2006:67–68. In a survey on particle splits in
Hessian dialects Johanna Schwalm and I conducted we also found
examples for misplaced zu, both in simple cases, such as 9a, and in
interaction with particle stranding, as in 9b, the latter corresponding in
structural terms to example 7c above.
(9) a. De arm Anton brucht sich von sim Chef
the poor Anton needs REFL from his boss
net so loss uzeschnauze
not so let on=to=scorn (Simmershausen, Eastern Hessian)
b. Dä oarm Anton bruch sech net immer
the poor Anton needs REFL not always
so vo sim Chef o loss ze schnauze. (Günthers,
so from his boss on let to scorn Eastern Hessian)
‘Poor Anton doesn’t need to be always scorned by his boss.’
Note that structures such as 7b above also occur, where zu is attached
to the left verb in a left-branching structure (which is assumed to be the
base order in a Germanic OV language). An empirical survey of 94
speakers conducted by Schallert (2012) yielded six examples of this
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013852 Schallert
structure in Vorarlberg Alemannic, as in 10a; an analogous, albeit
sporadic example could also be found in Southern Bavarian, as in 10b.
(10) a. Er ist lieber humplig ham glofa,
he is rather limping home walked
als sich vo mir zfahra lo.
than REFL from me to=drive let
‘He rather walked home limping than let himself be driven home
by me.’ (ID 58; 62/w, Satteins, Vorarlberg)
b. Mei Våta glap z’gwing kinn
my father believes to=win can
‘My father believes he is able to win.’
(St. Veit in Defreggen, Eastern Tyrol;
Mayerthaler et al. 1995:55)
Further examples of this construction from a West Central and a Low
German dialect are given in 11. Example 11a from Frankfurt shows
doubling of zu, once in its regular position to the right, once displaced to
the left. Thus, the verb gelasse, which appears in the typical prefixed
infinitive construction selected by certain verbs (mainly modals—
brauchen ‘need’, shows a high affinity to this verbal class) in West
Central German dialects alongside the anomalous zu-marking. Note that
the Frankfurter Wörterbuch, the source for this example, states that zu
appears “häufig in Verdoppelung” ‘frequently in doubling’ (Brückner
1988:3650), so there can be no doubt that this construction represents a
regular grammatical pattern and is not just a production error. Another
example of this type, given in 11b, comes from the urban dialect of
Berlin. Example 11c is from North Lower Saxon.
(11) a. ich brauch merr deß net zu gefalle zu gelasse
I need me.DAT that not to please to let
‘I don’t need to put up with that’ (Brückner 1988:3651)
b. det brauch er sich nich zu jefallen zu lassen
that need.3.SG he REFL not to please to let
‘that he needn’t put up with that’ (Schildt & Schmidt 1986:241)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 53
c. Und nun sind wir dann wieder angefangen
and now are we then again started
eine Neuüberschlickung da vonstatten zu gehen lassen.
a new.over.mudding there pass.off to go let
‘And now we have again started to pass off an overflow with
mud.’6 (ZW1Q3; Averlak, Schleswig-Holstein)
In light of the diachronic and dialect data, there is sufficient evidence
that zu mostly attaches to the rightmost verb in the verbal complex, yet in
some cases it is handed down to the immediately preceding verb. This
means that the long-held generalization (since Merkes 1895), which is
also maintained by Gaeta (2013:584) and Salzmann (2016:409, 2019:11),
is not entirely correct.7
A short typological digression: Misplacement of te is also reported for
dialectal/regiolectal varieties of Dutch, as the following example (taken
from Pots 2017:128) shows. It features the Dutch progressive construction
with the verb zitten ‘sit’, which selects a te-infinitive; the te-marking can
surface on any verb in the right periphery.
(12) Peter zal vanwege de nieuwe dienstregeling
Peter will because.of the new schedule
binnenkort nog langer op de trein
soon even longer on the train
[⟨te⟩ moeten1 ⟨te⟩ zitten2 ⟨te⟩ wachten3].
to must.INF to sit.INF to wait.INF
‘Because of the new schedule, Peter will soon have to wait even
longer for the train.’
6
In North Western Low German, the phase predicate anfangen ‘begin’ uses the
perfective auxiliary sein ‘sein’, as is the case for Dutch (see, among others,
Schallert 2013:123 for further information).
7
Gaeta (2013:584) views the placement of zu in the penultimate position as a
“specified constructional idiom” in the sense of Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004
and sees its specific function in delimiting the verbal complex as a syntactic
domain.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013854 Schallert
However, there is considerable variation in terms of the overall
acceptability of this positional variability and in terms of the specific
contexts in which it can apply. Pots takes this variation as sufficient
evidence for a bipartite analysis of te. For speakers who only allow the in
situ variant (where the infinitival marker appears on the expected verb,
that is, wachten selected by zitten), it acts as a prefix. Conversely, the
dislocation configurations are analyzed as instances of clitic climbing
(familiar from restructuring verbs in Romance languages such as Italian).
A closer parallel to the misplacements in the German dialects I have
presented can be found in Afrikaans, Flemish, and certain varieties of
Dutch, where te seems to be able to appear right in front of the whole
verbal complex (see Salzmann 2019:43–44 for several examples).
Turning back to German and summarizing the data presented so far,
one is faced with a somewhat blurred picture: While the various syntactic
positions of zu (particularly in the dialects) point to the conclusion that it
is a syntactically active element, the coordination facts hint at its status
as a prefix (see also Salzmann 2019:38 for some discussion). Note, in
passing, that the situation in Dutch is comparable (see Zwart 1993:104).
On closer inspection, even the facts of status agreement (in the sense of
Bech 1955:19) might turn out to be not as clear-cut as previously
assumed. Salzmann (2019:38, note 28) points to cases where zu can be
missing in Xo-coordinations. An investigation of the corpus of Digitales
Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (DWDS; Digital Dictionary of the
German Language) supports this observation: While examples such as
13a with this kind of structure occur quite regularly (49 cases), complex
coordinations always show status agreement, as in 13b (no
counterexamples).
(13) a. Du wirst wissen, was zu tun und lassen ist,
you will know what to do and let is
damit alle Spaß haben.
so.that all fun have
‘You will know what needs to be done and what needs to be
avoided for everybody to have fun.’
(Braun & Nell 1971, Man muß sich nur zu helfen wissen, p. 148)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 55
b. [...] die ihm befiehlt, alles Vieh weit und breit
who him.DAT orders all cattle far and wide
zu töten und töten zu lassen
to kill and kill to let
‘who orders him to kill, and have killed, all cattle far and wide’
(Vossische Zeitung, morning edition, April 4th, 1928)
This kind of variation is also acknowledged by prescriptive grammars of
German. The Duden volume on grammatically problematic cases
(grammatische Zweifelsfälle; Hennig 2016:1060) recommends marking
both conjuncts with zu in coordinated constructions, such as 14. “§”
indicates that the omission of the second zu is not recommended
prescriptively.
(14) Es begann zu stürmen und §(zu) schneien.
it began to storm and to snow
‘It began to storm and snow.’
Against this background, it does not come as a surprise that in dialects as
well, data with one zu shared by both verbs, such as 15a, occur alongside
the regular cases such as 15b, where the infinitival marker is present in
both conjuncts (examples from the Zwirner corpus).8
(15) a. und jetzt wußte ich halt nicht,
and now knew I MP not
was ich zu [tun und lassen] habe
what I to do and let have
‘and then I didn’t know what to do and what not to do’
(ZWG83; Kreimbach-Kaulbach, Rhineland-Palatinate)
b. Man muß ja doch wissen,
one must MP MP know
was man [zu tun] und [zu lassen] hat.
what one to do and to let has
8
This corpus can be accessed via the Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch
(DGD; the Database for Spoken German).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013856 Schallert
‘One has to know what to do and what not to do.’
(ZW3G8; Panrod, Hesse)
As the examples in 16 from the Early New High German period show,
this kind of variation seems to have its roots in older stages of German.
(16) a. das ain yeglicher widersach/ vndersteet seynen wiedersacher
that a each opponent desists his opponent
zu belaydigen. beswaren vnd zu raitzn̄
to insult burden and to irritate
‘that each opponent desists from insulting, burdening, and
irritating his opponent’
(Geiler, Predigten teütsch 144a; from Ebert et al. 1993:397)
b. der gewonet auch die leute zu reissen und fressen
who is.used.to also the people to seize and devour
‘who is also used to seize and devour the people’
(Luther, Ez. 19,6; from Haspelmath 1989:297)
In his general grammaticalization scenario that describes the progression
from the allative preposition to the infinitive marker, Haspelmath
(1989:297) treats the reduction of an item’s scope as one of the common
grammaticalization parameters. He then takes data such as 16 to indicate
reduction of the structural scope of zu (see Lehmann 2015, chapter 4):
Whereas it is able to attach to bigger syntactic domains—namely, phrasal
conjuncts—in this era, it gradually turns into an element attached to
single stems (that is, an affix).
2.2. Other Displacement Phenomena.
In his seminal paper on substitutes in the system of nonfinite
morphology, Höhle (2006) shows that the examples of the wrongly
attached infinitival prefix discussed so far are but an instance of one of
several morphological displacement phenomena that occur in the context
of complex predicates. Another example can be seen in 17. It is from an
East Central German dialect in which werd- ‘become’ (wæn in 17)
normally selects a so-called gerundial form of the infinitive suffixed by
-e(n), which goes back to an inflected form of the infinitive in the Old
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 57
High German/Middle High German era. However, in cases where the
dependent of werd- ‘become’ itself embeds another verb, as in 17, the
expected gerundial form of the infinitive is replaced by the special
substitute form müd ‘must’. The gerundial suffix -e(n) required by werd-
now appears on the dependent of müd, in this case glün ‘sue’. Höhle
refers to this form as “supine” since it differs from the regular past
participle by truncation of the participial prefix and by its occasional
vowel alternations.9
(17) mə wæn müd glün
we will must.SUP sue (Kleinschmalkalden, Thuringia;
‘we will likely have to sue’10
(Dellit 1913; cited in Höhle 2006:66)
Typically, examples of this construction are found in perfective contexts
such as 18, which feature the modal verbs müssen ‘must’ and dürfen ‘be
allowed to’ (the latter is obviously derived from a different ablaut grade
than the regular participle); however, there are also examples of this
construction in future and passive contexts.11
(18) a. ij håwe musd gi:e
I have must.SUP go.GER
‘I had to go’ (regular participle: gemusd)
(Oberschwöditz [Trebnitz], Saxony-Anhalt)
b. du håsd darfd driŋke
you have been.allowed.SUP drink
9
The most prototypical case of a substitute form would be due to the well-
known IPP effect, whereby an expected participle is replaced by the infinitive in
perfective contexts. Thus, it is but one of several cases with an unexpected
morphological marking appearing in a verbal chain.
10
The original English translation provided by Höhle (2006) has been adapted.
11
In some cases, the morphosyntactic marking of the embedding perfective
auxiliary can be reflected by the concrete form of the supine, in that the
subjunctive mood triggers the respective stem (see Höhle 2006:60–61 and
Schallert 2014b:268 on such forms in Alemannic).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013858 Schallert
‘you were allowed to drink’ (regular participle: gedorfd)
(Trebs 1899; cited in Höhle 2006:57–58)
Let me now return to example 17 above: Even though the gerundial
form required by werd- is not realized by müss, it appears on its
immediate dependent, glün ‘sue’ (as shown by the suffix
-n instead of the bare infinitive, which shows no suffix in this dialect).
Thus, morphological selection requirements are passed down to the next
verb, very much the same as with the zu-cases discussed earlier.
A further level of displacement is represented by cases where the
most deeply embedded verb satisfies the selectional requirements of both
its superordinate verbs, as is shown with the Alemannic example in 19
from Bernese German quoted by Höhle (2006:70). Here, the zu-marked
infinitive z’häuffe ‘to help’ can be interpreted as simultaneously fulfilling
the requirements of schiint ‘seems’ and probiere ‘try’. Against the
background of the cases of zu-doubling I presented above, one might also
wonder whether this example results from syntactic haplology.
(19) dr Hans schiint sine Fründe probiere z’häuffe
the Hans seems his Friends try to=help
‘Hans appears to try to help his friends’ (Bader 1995:22)
Further cases of this phenomenon are discussed by Salzmann (2016:428–
432, 2019:31–34); an appropriate example from Early New High
German is quoted in Behaghel 1924:308. The Duden volume mentioned
earlier recommends that cases of haplology such as 20—when only one
of two infinitives bears the zu-marking—should be avoided (Hennig
2016:1060).
(20) Ich hoffe mich §(zu) erkennen geben zu können.
I hope me.REFL to recognize give to could
‘I hope to be able to reveal myself.’
Finally, and somewhat orthogonally to the cases I have discussed so
far, detachment phenomena can also be observed with finite forms.
Famous examples come from Swabian (for example, Steil 1989 and
references quoted therein) or East Franconian (Heyse et al. 2007:439),
where the finiteness features in complex predicates can occur on the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 59
embedded instead of the embedding predicate; this effect is reported for
the benefactive verb helfen ‘help’ (as in 21) and the phase predicate
anfangen ‘begin’ (see also Schallert 2014a:192 and Salzmann 2019:44–
45 for some information on this phenomenon).
(21) a. Hilf mir schiebe!
help.IMP me shove.INF
b. Schieb mir helfe!
shove.IMP me help.INF
‘Help me shove!’ (Häfner 1951:136)
c. Glaubsch, der hedd mr hälfa kochd?
believe.2.SG he.DEM had me help.INF cook.3.SG
‘Do you believe he would have helped me cook?’ (Steil 1989:41)
Morphological displacement with finite forms remains an understudied
subject even though it is crucial for a deeper understanding of
morphological mismatches triggered by syntactic processes.
2.3. Generalizations About zu and Displaced Morphology.
In light of the data that he compiled, Höhle (2006:73) states a
generalization about displacement phenomena similar to the ones
discussed here. In his view, they are word order-sensitive: They are
blocked in left-branching configurations, as in 22a, whereas they occur
freely in right-branching ones, as in 22b. As I demonstrated in the
preceding section, there is counterevidence to this generalization, at least
when it comes to the behavior of the infinitival marker zu.
(22) a. Vfin/C ... V2 V1 (no displacement)
b. Vfin/C ... V1 V2 (displacement)
Höhle (2006:73–74) takes this generalization to hold in disharmonic
configurations as well, that is, syntagmas that show partially right-
branching and partially left-branching orders, as long as the relevant
segment is right-branching. Thus, of the serializations schematized in 23,
transfer of V2’s selectional requirements on to V3 would be blocked in
23a,b, while being licensed in 23c.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013860 Schallert
(23) a. V1 V3 V2
b. V3 V1 V2
c. V2 V1 V3
However, this corollary also runs into trouble. One famous instance
of the scandal construction, quoted in 5c above and repeated in 24, also
features a disharmonic word order, namely, 3–1–2, yet it only partially
corresponds to Höhle’s generalization. While the displacement of zu
applies within a right-branching segment, namely, ⟨haben können⟩, the
other relevant segment, ⟨helfen können⟩, is clearly left-branching.
(24) ohne gesungen haben zu können
without sung.PCPT have to can.IPP
‘without having been able to sing’ (Vogel 2009:325, example 37)
More precisely, the relevant generalization seems to be that under certain
conditions, a syntactic element Xn that governs a second status (zu) can
transfer its selectional requirements to Xn+1, the category it immediately
dominates, a process that is schematically visualized in 25.
(25) a. [… [Xn zu ] [Xn+1 …]]
b. [… [Xn+1 …] [Xn zu ]]
The way in which I formulate this generalization is inspired by Höhle
(2006), yet my version is less restrictive. Branching direction does not
seem to be the relevant factor, as misplacement occurs in left- as well as
in right-branching configurations, as shown in 26a and 26b, respectively.
Formation of an upper field, that is, fronting of the governing category to
the leftmost position of the verbal complex, poses no obstacle for the
transfer of zu in 26c, nor does the occurrence of nonverbal interveners
(verb projection raising), as can be observed in the Swiss Alemannic
example in 27 (from Salzmann 2013b:77).
(26) a. [V z fahra] loo (compare 10a)
to drive let
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 61
b. choo [V z bättle] (compare 8b)
come to beg
c. ohne haben [V helfen zu können]
without have help to could
‘without having been able to help’
(27) ohni mi [V welle [V uf d bullesite z stelle]],
without me want.INF on the cops.side to put.INF
im gegeteil […]
on=the contrary
‘without wanting to side with the cops, on the contrary, but […]’
Let me summarize the discussion in this section: zu-infinitives show
unexpected behavior in that they can be misplaced both to the left and to
the right within the verbal complex. Such a behavior seems to be absent
in other areas of infinitival morphology, however, with the exception of
the scandal construction (see Salzmann 2019:11–15 for a detailed
discussion).
3. What is the Proper Analysis of zu?
Ever since Höhle’s (2006) important contribution, there has been a
revived interest in morphological mismatches in the right nonfinite
domain, the zu-anomaly just being a small piece of the puzzle. Since the
main contribution of my paper is empirical, I do not deal with the
specifics of different approaches (see Salzmann 2016:19–23 and in
particular, Salzmann 2019 for a recent overview). What is more, those
approaches are all problematic in the sense that they are based on the
following two assumptions, which have been contested by the data
quoted in the preceding section:
(i) zu attaches to the rightmost verb of the verbal complex;
(ii) Misplaced morphology only occurs in right-branching configurations.
So back to the drawing board. What is the easiest way of capturing the
generalization that zu can be handed down to the next dependent verb?
Directionality comes into play as a (micro-)parametric option, because
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013862 Schallert
this one step can either apply to the right (which seems to be the more
common option) or to the left (the less common option).12 The answer to
this question is twofold: First, I discuss precedence statements as a
technical means to deal with the (mis)placement of zu (section 3.1). As a
more powerful alternative for handling this phenomenon, I use the
infixing operations introduced by Bach (1984) as an analytical tool.
Finally (section 3.3), I discuss Salzmann’s (2013b, 2016, 2019) approach
to how zu and other cases of misplaced morphology might be treated and
address some open problems with his analysis.
3.1. Precedence Rules.
The first explicit formalization of precedence rules can be found in the
context of GPSG even though attempts at such formalization had been
made before (see Gazdar et al. 1985, chapter 3). The basic approach
consists of reformulating a context-free production rule such as 28a as an
immediate dominance (ID) rule in the format of 28b. The crucial
difference between the two formats is that the latter formulation does not
make any claims about the linear ordering of the nodes on the right-hand
side of the rule, that is, any of the n! permutations of the nodes B1, B2, …,
Bn is licensed. In their original form, precedence statements are restricted
to local trees, that is, a single mother node plus all the nodes it
immediately dominates.
(28) a. A → B1 B2 B3 ... Bn
b. A → B1, B2, B3, ..., Bn
As Gazdar et al. (1985:44–45) note, statements like these are part of the
definition of the set of trees a particular context-free phrase structure
grammar permits. Additional (linear) precedence rules as local relations
between the nodes on the right-hand side are introduced. I now give the
precise definitions of these concepts in 29, which are slightly adapted
from Klenk 1985:39.
12
Qualifying cases, such as the ones already given in Schallert 2012:252, as
“very rare exceptions” (Salzmann 2016:9) seems premature, at least to me. If
there is an agreement that the zu-anomaly is a phenomenon in its own right, not
just a “grammatical illusion” (Haider 2011), then its directionality ought to be
taken seriously.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 63
(29) Definition 1. An ID/LP syntax is a 5-tuple (VNT, VT, ID, LP, S),
where VNT, the set of nonterminals, and VT, the set of terminals, are
vocabularies with VNT ∩ VT = Ø. S is the starting symbol, ID—the
set of immediate dominance rules, and LP—the set of linear
precedence rules.
Definition 2. An ID rule is a finite, nonempty set of pairs of the
form (A, ⟨A1, …, An⟩) with n > 0 or (A, ⟨…⟩) (deletion rule) where
A ∈ VNT and Ai ∈ VNT ∪ VT for 1 ≥ i ≥ n. Alternatively, one can notate
such rules as A ⇒ ⟨A1, …, An⟩ or A⇒ ⟨…⟩.
Definition 3. A linear precedence rule (LP) is an asymmetric
relation R ⊆ VNT × VT. This means that for each x, y ∈ VNT ∪ VT it
follows that x ~ R y implies y ~ R x. In addition, this relation is
transitive, meaning that for some z ∈ VNT ∪ VT with connection x ~
R y and y ~ R z, then x ~ R x also holds. I denote this relation by ≺
and its inverse (R–1) by ≻.
Klenk (1985:40–41) proves an interesting result with regard to the formal
complexity of an ID/LP syntax, showing that the sets of context-free
languages LCF and those of LID/LP languages have the same cardinality.
However, this does not mean that the two types of underlying grammars
are equivalent. In general, it is not possible to devise an equivalent ID/LP
syntax for a given context-free syntax directly, that is, without
conversion into a modified context-free syntax (ibid.).
Let me now proceed to an analysis of the zu-facts in terms of
precedence rules. Linearization statements have been applied to word
order properties of languages such as German in general (Kathol 2000)
and to complex predicates in particular (Müller 2002). An open question
in the context of this problem is how flat or layered the verbal complex
is. For instance, the observation that scope-sensitive material occurring
within the verbal complex domain (as in verb projection raising
structures) seems to allow only narrow readings has been taken as
evidence for a layered structure (Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986,
Salzmann 2011), yet there is also counterevidence (see Schallert 2014a,
section 3.2.2 for some discussion). With regard to the special case of the
infinitival marker, however, there is no indication that word order
variation is associated with differences in interpretation (see Salzmann
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013864 Schallert
2019:21–22). The same holds true for split infinitives in English, albeit
for independent reasons, of course—to is a functional head and thus
always scopes over the VP.
Note that the approach by Salzmann (2013b, 2016, 2019) makes use
of linearization statements as well, yet they require quite complex
background assumptions: Zu is assumed to be the exponent of a head-
final functional projection, and displacement is the effect of local
dislocation (in the framework of Distributed Morphology, see Embick &
Noyer 2001). Ironically, this approach is not powerful enough because it
ignores the misplacements to the left, for which I have given sufficient
empirical evidence. Although I fully agree that a linearization approach
to zu is on the right track, it can be stated in much simpler terms while
still covering much of the relevant data. By reducing precedence rules to
the bare bones, so to speak, it is easier to adapt or extend them, thus
fitting them to the syntactic model of one’s choice.
In the following, I show how the most common serializations can be
derived with an ID/LP-syntax. First, the question is how Gazdar et al.’s
(1985) notion of a local tree in the above sense can be sensibly applied to
the case at hand. As linearization domain (LD) or local tree I consider all
verbal heads of the VP-domain, including zu/te (and perhaps other
infinitival markers), irrespective of what exact hierarchical relations
might hold between them.
(30) LD ⇒ V1 V2 V3 ...Vn
Let me take the three main serializations with respect to the
positioning of zu from 26, which are illustrated with the same lexical
material in 31. For the time being, I treat the regular placement of zu as
in 31a on par with the stranding case in 32. The latter structure results
from fronting the auxiliary in the context of the substitute infinitive
construction, but I only consider the placement of zu, the modal können
‘can’, and the lexical verb helfen ‘help’. Going back to 31, I am
interested in the position of the ECM-verb lassen ‘let’, which I regard as
belonging to the category Mod, zu ‘to’, and the lexical verb fahren
‘drive’, meaning that LD := {V, zu, Mod}. The latter label, Mod, covers
all verbs that are able to enter a selectional relation with other verbs, that
is, show “status government” in Bech’s (1955:12) traditional
terminology, but are not auxiliaries: 31a represents the Standard German
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 65
system with zu at the rightmost end of the verbal complex, 31b the
system of Swiss German and other dialects with dislocation to the right,
and 31c the mirror-image counterpart, as represented, for example, by
Vorarlberg Alemannic.13
(31) a. Standard German
anstatt sich von mir fahren zu lassen
instead REFL from me drive to let
b. Swiss German
anstatt sich von mir lassen zu fahren
instead REFL from me let to drive
c. Vorarlberg German
anstatt sich von mir zu fahren lassen
instead REFL from me to drive let
‘instead of letting me drive him’
(32) ohne ihm [haben [helfen zu können]]
without him.DAT have help to could
‘without having been able to help him’
The Standard German system can be derived with the precedence rules in
33. LP1 and LP2 alone are powerful enough to capture the serializations
in 31a,c, which is incidentally the system of Vorarlberg Alemannic—
alongside displacement to the left, the Standard German serialization is
always possible in this variety (see Schallert 2012, section 8.3.2 for an
overview). Of course, ungrammatical serializations, for example, ⟨Mod,
V, zu⟩, are ruled out due to LP2 in the present case.
(33) a. LP1: V ≺ Mod
b. LP2: zu ≺ Mod
13
I do not want to claim that ECM-verbs are actually modals. The only
important assumption I am making is that they are categorically distinct from
auxiliaries (no argument structure) and lexical verbs (no status government), so
this category label may be replaced with a more appropriate one.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013866 Schallert
c. LP3: V ≺ zu
For the system of Swiss German (and other varieties with dislocation to
the right) the precedence rules in 34 are needed. Note that LP4 and LP5 in
34a,b are the exact mirror image of LP1 and LP2 in 33a,b. Once again,
ungrammatical patterns are banned by these precedence rules, for
instance ⟨zu, Mod, V⟩, due to LP5.
(34) a. LP4: Mod ≺ V
b. LP5: Mod ≺ zu
c. LP6: zu ≺ V
As previous examples have shown, it is not so difficult, with the aid
of precedence rules, to establish the correct serialization patterns of zu.
However, an analysis along these lines soon runs into trouble with more
complex configurations. Consider the misplacement caused by auxiliary
fronting in 32 above. Without additional precedence rules for the
placement of the auxiliary, there is the problem of overgeneration
because ungrammatical serializations such as 35 are not blocked by the
rules stated in LP1–LP3.
(35) a. *helfen zu können haben (V zu Mod (Aux))
b. *helfen zu haben können (V zu (Aux) Mod)
A quite natural solution to these problems would be positing more
elaborated precedence rules, for example, zu ≺ Vn, which translates as
“zu always has to precede the verb with the highest index (that is, the
most deeply embedded verb)”. However, such a rule cannot be stated in
the context-free format I introduced in this section. Another obvious
problem is posed by the zu-doubling cases discussed in section 2.1. Apart
from the fact that they cannot introduce new material, it is very difficult
to formulate appropriate precedence rules for both tokens of zu.
3.2. Morphosyntactic Infixing Operations.
In the previous section, I showed that the basic patterns of the zu-
anomaly can be treated in a sufficient manner with the aid of precedence
rules. It became apparent, however, that such rules soon reach their limits
when confronted with the great range of variability in the verbal
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138German zu ‘to’ 67
complex. What is more, an approach along these lines cannot cover cases
of zu-doubling. I now want to propose an alternative analysis of the zu-
facts in terms of a special kind of infixation. Such an approach was first
developed in the context of Categorical Morphology (see the overview in
Stewart 2016:22–26). This analysis was originally proposed for dealing
with verb raising constructions in Dutch, but it can also be easily
extended to the phenomenon under discussion here.
Bach (1984) proposes several wrapping rules that operate on a string
x of grammatical categories x1 … xn.14 These operations were taken up by
Hoeksema & Janda (1988:206–221) to analyze a wide variety of
(morphological) infixation processes. Since I am interested solely in the
process of prefixation, I focus on the relevant operations given in 36.
(36) a. LWRAP-pref(x, y) = (LREST(x) (y LAST(x)))
b. RWRAP-pref(x, y) = (FIRST(x) (y RREST(x)))
These operations allow prefixing an element y either to xn, the last
category of x, as in 36a, or to the right rest of x, that is, the first element
following x1. Evidently, such devices are inspired by the typical string
methods that are implemented in almost all modern programming
languages. Taking Python as an example, the following code snippet
splits the string into its first element and the rest. For completeness’ sake,
I also give the reverse operation in the last row of 37.
(37) >>> s = “string”
>>> s[:1], s[1:]
>>> (‘s’, ‘tring’)
14
Wrapping rules were suggested by Bach (1979) and employed in the analysis
of a range of phenomena, most notably order-sensitive effects of linking
syntactic functions (see Baldridge & Hoyt 2015:1065–1066). An example for
such a rule would be Forward Wrap as defined in (i).
(i) (X/Y)/wZ ⇒Wrap (X/Z)/Y
In technical terms, one is dealing with a commuting combinator (Cfxy ≡ fyx) that
permutes the arguments of a given functor category (Baldridge & Hoyt
2015:1065). This device extends the generative power of a categorial grammar
to the level of so-called mildly context-sensitive languages (Vijay-Shanker &
Weir 1994).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147054271900013868 Schallert
>>> s[:-1], s[-1:]
>>> (‘strin’, ‘g’)
The cases where zu attaches to the left, that is, the first element of the
verbal complex, can be handled by defining one further wrap operation
that prefixes zu to the first element of the string x1, …, xn. I want to call
this operation FWRAP—the definition is given in 38.
(38) FWRAP-pref(x, y) = ((y FIRST(x)) LAST(x))
Empirical motivation for such a rule comes from the observation that in
Dutch, for instance, verb particles can be stranded at the left edge of the
verbal complex, as shown in 39 (from Neeleman & Weerman 1993:435).
Crucially, op still constitutes a part of the verbal complex in that no
nonverbal interveners can be inserted between it and the following verb.
(39) a. dat Jan het meisje wil opbellen
that John the girl wants PART=phone
b. dat Jan het meisje op wil bellen
that John the girl PART wants phone
‘that John wants to call the girl’
How do standard concatenative morphological operations such as
prefixation or suffixation work in this framework? Hoeksema (1985:15)
takes categories, simple or derived, to be represented as ordered triples
according to the blueprint of 40, comprising a phonological (πp), a
categorial (πc), and a semantic component (πs).
(40) L := ⟨πp(L); πc(L); πs(L)⟩
Affixation is handled via two directionally specified application rules—
Hoeksema (1985:19) speaks of “cancellation”. The categorical
dimensions of Right cancellation and Left cancellation are listed in 41a
and 41b, respectively.
(41) a. Right cancellation (RC; that is, prefixation): (A/B, B) = A
b. Left cancellation (LC; that is, suffixation): (A, A\B) = B
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Dec 2021 at 06:03:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000138You can also read
